Overlapping Abilities

[eris404]

This came up on a email list I belong to and a really interesting (and sometimes heated) discussion came up, so I thought I'd pose the question here. How do you deal with characters who have similar abilities? Here's the situation the original poster gave:

I am new to DMing and I have a problem with the group I am running. I have a large group (7 players in all, plus 1 part-time player who can only play about once a month) and two players have similar characters. One is playing a bard, the other an wizard who specializes in enchantment and has a very high charisma. Though they have very different abilities in some ways, both want to be the diplomat of the party and both want to use charm spells/abilities. Almost every session they argue over who gets to talk NPCs, cast charm, etc. I have tried my best to referee and be fair, but both players have strong personalities and like to be the center of attention. If I rule for one, the other sulks. To make matters worse, another player plays a rogue and a fourth player, whose chartacter is now a fighter, wants to start taking levels in rogue. I don't want half the party fighting over who gets to do what! How do I make sense of this?

 

[Particle_Man]

With rogues, it ain't a problem. It is GOOD to have two rogues checking for traps, trying to open locks, sneaking around, and trying to flank (in fact, two rogues usually make a great team this way).

For the "face" types, if they can't simply take turns, have them roll initiative. The one who rolls highest, gets to "seize the moment" and speak, and the other is assumed to be savvy enough not to make the first look bad by interuppting his pitch.

 

[fba827]

for the face man role, you can either roll for initiative - this may come off as unfair, however, if they have vastly different init modifiers so check their init mods before suggesting this method. Alternatively, and this is a meta-game solution, simply make them alternate between encounter or between game sessions or per game-session hour.. or whatever time frame you think will be fairest and keep the other from getting bored.

As for the rogue thing - as already said by Particle Man, having more than one rogue to check for traps, etc is a good thing. The other option is to encourage the Aid Another action on skills. (Those with the lower skill mods simply attempt to help the first by beating a DC 10, if successful, add +2 to the higher persons check)... of course, this only works up to a certain point - how many people can logically be around the trap/lock getting in on it trying to work and help. etc.

Aid another may also help the faceman role issue if they are both trying to do it via diplomacy and skill (as opposed to casting enchantments).

 

[Jeff Wilder]

With rogues, it ain't a problem. It is GOOD to have two rogues checking for traps, trying to open locks, sneaking around, and trying to flank (in fact, two rogues usually make a great team this way).

It's also probably not a problem because for the most part fighters who take levels in rogue are in it for the combat blend and special abilities, not for the actual "rogue slot" in the party. Believe me, I (unfortunately) know from experience: a multi-classed rogue simply cannot measure up to a dedicated rogue when it comes to traditional rogue abilities. At best, the fighter/rogue will be doing a lot of assiting of skill checks.

For the "face" types, if they can't simply take turns, have them roll initiative. The one who rolls highest, gets to "seize the moment" and speak, and the other is assumed to be savvy enough not to make the first look bad by interuppting his pitch.

I suppose I'm having a hard time understanding why the two can't share the face role. It's an advantage in nearly every social situation to have two advocates for a single position ... good cop-bad cop, tag-team haggling, the pigeon drop, Sean Connery's sublime intimidation scheme in The Untouchables ... whatever. Two is better than one.

If they really can't work it out, the best solution is for one of them to create a different character, with the understanding that if the other face dies, the guy who took a back seat gets first crack at being the new face.